Election Day Cometh

So it finally comes - Election day 2011, the day of the 41st General Election in Canadian history.  After starting off with a whimper, looking like it was a Question of a small Conservative majority or a return to the ante electione status quo, a political earthquake appeared to take place (according to polls), this election has turned into something of a horse race, for lack of a better metaphor.

Right now, the polls are open, Canadians are voting, and we don't know what will happen.  Until 9:30 PM EDT,  NDP leader Jack Layton's dreams of 24 Sussex Drive on the shoulders of the other opposition leaders live on in the candy-coloured (think red smarties) lands of his imagination.  Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe can tell himself the feelings of impending doom are nothing but the dim memories of a bad dream.  And Green leader Lizzy May can tell herself she will in a few hours she will be leader of a party with as many seats as an independent.

Liberal and Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff can tell himself that forcing this election wasn't such a bad idea, and won't necessarily lead to the annihilation of his party and political career.  Prime Minister and Conservative leader Stephen Harper can imagine the possibilities of helming a majority government.  These dreams may or may not come true, but until 9:30 PM tonight, the possibilities are myriad.

So let your dreams run wild, political leaders, for some time tonight, at least some of you are in for a most rude awakening.

Goldstein: 15 stupid election cliches to ban | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

by Lorrie Goldstein - from the Toronto Sun

Now that our 41st federal election campaign is — thankfully — over, I think we can all agree on some things we can do without in number 42.

Specifically, the following political/media cliches, that will no longer be acceptable in any future campaign.

(1) “The only poll that counts is on election day” — Reason: Because if the only poll that counts is on election day, what the @#*&?! were you doing polling every day of the campaign before election day?

(2) “This was a historic election” — Reason: Because every election is “historic” once it’s over, you idiot!

(3) “We will pay for our programs with higher corporate taxes” — Reason: Because what this means is: “You will pay for our programs with higher retail prices.”

(4) “Vote-rich Ontario” — Reason: For gawd’s sake, just say what you mean, which is that Ontario has lots of voters, not that it’s vote-rich.

(5) “Jack Layton’s surging NDP” — Reason: Because this sounds vaguely sexual and is not the kind of grief Layton needs right now, given recent events.

(6) “A wet Kleenex” — Reason: Ditto, see above.

(7) “Michael Ignateiff, he didn’t come back for you” — Reason: OK, Conservatives, we get it, we get it. Our ears are bleeding and we have a splitting headache — STOP IT! RIGHT NOW!

(8) “Stephen Harper’s hidden agenda” — Reason: Because if you haven’t found it by now, you’re never going to find it. Read more

Goldstein: 15 stupid election cliches to ban | Columnists | Opinion | Toronto Sun

Osama Bin Laden Dead! President Obama Confirms "Justice Has Been Done"

A small team of Americans killed Bin Laden in a firefight, and no Americans were killed in the action.  Action was ordered by US President Barack Obama, based on an exhaustive intelligence investigation.  Congratulations, President Obama.  You have relieved the world of a major threat to it's peace and security.


The architect of 9/11, the leader of Al Qaeda, murderer, terrorist, blight upon the face of humanity.  Let him be commemorated through the words of comedian Robin Williams:

"I can see it now: Osama bin Laden goes up to the gates of Heaven where George Washington comes out, says, "How dare you defile what I have created," and starts whaling on his ass, then 70 other members of the Continental Congress come out and start kicking the shit out of him. Osama will say, "Hey, wait! Where are my virgins?" "That's 71 *Virginians*, you asshole!"

There is no need for mourning.  His death marks a new day for the world.  

Osama Bin Laden Dead!

It appears Osama Bin Laden, mastermind of 9/11, is dead.  President Obama is expected to announce soon the killing of the Al Qaeda head as a result of a CIA operation.  More to follow.

Lawrence Solomon: Tornadoes could be an omen of global cooling | Full Comment | National Post

by Lawrence Solomon - from the National Post

Tornadoes are associated with episodes of great temperature contrasts, often involving unseasonably cold air colliding with warm air. During the 1960s and 1970s, when global temperatures cooled so much that scientists believed we were entering a period of global cooling , the number of tornadoes rose. 1973, which saw 1100 tornadoes in the U.S., was dubbed The Year of the Tornado, only to be followed by the fiercer Widespread Tornado Outbreak of 1974: Of that year’s 148 tornadoes, 118 tore up swathes of at least one mile in length and claimed 330 deaths. As temperatures rose in the following decades, tornadoes steadily declined in number.

Over the last decade, global temperatures stopped rising and have begin to fall. And tornadoes could once again be on the rise, a sign of the global cooling trend that many climate experts have been anticipating. Read more...

Lawrence Solomon: Tornadoes could be an omen of global cooling | Full Comment | National Post

Chris Selley: Layton ‘scandal’ not likely to matter much | Full Comment | National Post

by Chris Selley - from the National Post

It’s awfully tough to judge rationally, in a non-partisan fashion, what to think of Jack Layton having allegedly been found naked on a mattress in a massage parlour in Toronto’s Chinatown 15 years ago. Some say the establishment was known for, shall we say, its supplementary services. Mr. Layton says he had no idea. Are people generally naked while getting shiatsu massages? Do these massages often take place on beds, and not on some kind of more clinical apparatus? Some say yes, some say no.

Some say it would take a purebred moron not to recognize the joint as a rub-and-tuggery, but even if so, it would be impossible to convict Mr. Layton of anything more than extreme naivete. For me, it’s like being told Mr. Layton cheated in an important game of jai alai. I don’t know the rules; I have no basis on which to judge. Most people, I suspect, would conclude that in the grand scheme of political missteps, someone not being charged with a crime, 15 years ago, is pretty close to a non-event.

Know this for certain: In 1996, Toronto Police had absolutely no incentive to cut Mr. Layton a break. As a municipal politician, he was one of their harsher critics. If they had a good case against him, you can bet they’d have pursued it wearing a mile-wide grin.

The online debate, not least among journalists, has been largely about whether this was a “legitimate” story. It’s a bit baffling, really. Of course it’s a legitimate story. The NDP campaign hasn’t disputed a word of it. Toronto Police have launched an investigation into how the police officer’s notebooks on which the story was based got out — as well they should. They seem to have an information management problem. But people can’t complain about journalists ferreting out information they don’t like hearing, or that they think is prurient or mean-spirited or politically motivated, and applaud when journalists ferret out information they do like hearing. Read more...

Chris Selley: Layton ‘scandal’ not likely to matter much | Full Comment | National Post

Jack Layton, On Why Residents of Quebec Are More Important Than Other Canadians.

Believe in democracy as the idea of "one person, one vote", and that this is a sacrosanct part of Canadian government?  Jack Layton doesn't.  Consider this exchange from his interview with the Globe and Mail's editorial board:

Mr. Geiger: We have a couple of questions from readers. I just received a Tweet from Caroline Hayward. She’s asking, Do you support additional seats for Ontario and Western Canada? You favour abolition of the Senate, which is one way in our parliamentary system that regional voices can be aired. If you are going to do that don’t you need to have better representation in the rep by pop chamber, which required reform of the house?

Mr. Layton: Yes we do support more seats for Ontario and Alberta and British Columbia. We also support retaining the current weight of Quebec in the seat calculation and we think it is possible to find our way to both of those objectives.

You mentioned the Senate. Imagine appointing candidates to the Senate, Members of Parliament who were defeated by the people of their region, and then you put them in the Senate. This to me completely undermines any argument that the Senate constitutes regional representation.

I clearly am very unhappy with what is happening with the Senate. The Senate has now become an activist entity. Overruling decisions that have been made by the elected house of commons. Other countries would not tolerate this and yet we somehow find it acceptable.

Mr. Geiger: If you have more seats to western Canada and Ontario, how do you maintain that historic balance with Quebec? They either get proportionally more seats or they don’t. Are you suggesting that all regions get more seats?

Mr. Layton: There would be additional seats allocated in Quebec as well.

Mr. Geiger: Even though it is not justified by population?

Mr. Layton: Well it justified by the historic political weight of Quebec in the federation. There is a solution that can be found here. It’s not an easy thing to do but it is one that we need to work for.

But we absolutely support additional seats for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. They are under represented at the moment and that needs to be addressed.

Mr. Stackhouse: And more seats for Quebec?

Mr. Layton: There would be an adjustment vis a vis quebec.

Mr. Geiger: So in other words, they wouldn’t have proportionally more seats.

Mr. Layton: Yes they would. Well, they would have more seats. Significantly more.

Mr. Geiger: But not proportionately more?

Mr. Layton: Well, it would begin to redress the very significant dis-proportionality we see.

In Canada we have a representative democracy, based on the idea that a given number of Canadians are grouped together in ridings to be represented by one Member of Parliament in our government. While the reality has always been that some ridings are more or less populous than the ideal, the objective has always been a basic level of equality.

But as the populations of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario continue to grow at a much faster rate than those of the other provinces, if seats in the House of Commons aren't redistributed to reflect this, or more added for those three provinces (and to others if similarly necessary) we run the risk of the ideal of "one person, one vote" becoming nothing more than a memory.

This is what Jack Layton has proposed.  He would guarantee Quebec's current percentage of seats in the commons in perpetuity, regardless of it's population relative to other jurisdictions.  So Quebec, which now has 75 seats, or just over 24% of the seats in the Commons, and is over-represented relative to ON, AB, and BC already (ON has 106 seats, AB 28, BC 36 - and based on even distribution, QC would have 68) would be locked in at that percentage.  Even if down the road Quebec's population were to merit only 20% or less of the seats in the House, they would still be guaranteed 24%.

Now, you ask, are there not other provinces much more over-represented than Quebec?  Yes - the only provinces NOT over-represented are, in fact, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.  But with an adjustment to the number of seats, this can be dealt with.  No province is guaranteed a fixed percentage of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity.  Yet.  Layton, in his quest for votes, is bribing Quebec with the promise of just such a guaranteed percentage.  This means that, as Quebec's share of Canada's population continues to shrink (projected to drop to 21% by 2026, with Ontario rising to 41% from the current 38.5%) the three currently under-represented provinces will see themselves even further discriminated against. As other provinces grow, this could become an issue for them as well.

The roots of the term democracy lay in the Greek demos, meaning people, and kratos, meaning power.  It is understood that the first examples of Athenian democracy were a literal  gathering of all citizens (not including slaves, women, etc - it was not an overly egalitarian society, to say the least).  Today, we realize a gathering of every Canadian of voting age in one place would be difficult, to say the least, and so we have a representative democracy.  This means the country is supposed to be divided into equally populated areas, each of which sends a representative to Ottawa.  While we don't in effect have this now, for a variety of (basically constitutional) reasons, the growth of the nations population, or the ability to add seats to the Commons, means we could see this problem eventually disappear.


But not if Quebec is guaranteed a permanent 24% of all seats in the House of Commons.  If we do, Canadian citizens outside of Quebec will have a new name.  Second class.

* - in particular those in Prince Edward Island (due to a constitutional requirement that no province have fewer MPs than Senators) and the north are underpopulated, while many urban ridings are overpopulated

Jack Layton, on the record - The Globe and Mail